Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Hatter The Mad]

You again forget that no force is involved in the former, but force is involved in the latter.

Why should I care if a wealthy person gives their layabout son £60m of their money? It makes no difference to me.

I do, however, care, when I'm forced to hand over money which is then given to a waster.

Do you not see the difference?

Nail and head.

Would somebody please bring this man a pint and listen to what he has to say?

Why? It is all claptrap. His trollop has no relation to reality. There is no use arguing with him, either, because he is childish and falls back on either (1) Not responding to you or (2) Resorting to argumentative fallacies

 

[RDM]

You'd rather scumbag got given £60m (that could be used elsewhere like taxbreaks to hard workers) for doing precisely NOTHING than got given £63.50 a week for doing precisely NOTHING?

Yes, because it isn't my money. Why on earth should I worry or even care about what other people do with their money? If some rich millionaire wants to give it all to his kids, so what? His life, their life, let them get on with it. I am not having to pay for it so it is frankly none of my business. Much like is said millionaire wanted to give all his money to charity or made his kids work for their money or a hundred other things. It isn't my place to judge him as it isn't costing me anything.

 

[meghatronic]

You'd rather scumbag got given £60m (that could be used elsewhere like taxbreaks to hard workers) for doing precisely nothing than got given £63.50 a week for doing precisely nothing?

What a strange way to think.

Well which one costs me?

And seeing as the UK benefits bill was £150.1 billion 2008/09 - well, think about it. There are roughly 26 million income tax payers, so assuming equal burden for easy maths, £5,773 each......

 

[britboy4321]

You again forget that no force is involved in the former, but force is involved in the latter.

Why should I care if a wealthy person gives their layabout son £60m of their money? It makes no difference to me.

I do, however, care, when I'm forced to hand over money which is then given to a waster.

Do you not see the difference?

It does DIRECTLY make a difference to you. Because the government could have built a hospital with that money that would have stopped your 2 month old baby dying of Typhoid.

But instead in your society 'fat unemployed bloke' spent it on hookers and cocaine.

Marvellous.

 

[meghatronic]

It does DIRECTLY make a difference to you. Because the government could have built a hospital with that money that would have stopped your 2 month old baby dying of Typhoid.

But instead in your society 'fat unemployed bloke' spent it on hookers and cocaine.

Marvellous.

The rich guy still paid more tax on £60mn in inheritance tax than you will ever pay in your life.

 

[robgmun]

You'd rather scumbag got given £60m (that could be used elsewhere like taxbreaks to hard workers) for doing precisely nothing than got given £63.50 a week for doing precisely nothing?

What a strange way to think.

wow, what an idiot!

Scumbag gets £60m, 3 ways this could ever happen

1) Wins the lottery, he gambled the same as anyone else and won, his money and entitled to it

2) Get from rich daddy, the money is in the family already, tax already paid to it when the money got earnt. Entitled to it

3) Stole it, thrown in jail and money removed as part of punishment, he's not entitled to it

Anything else done to try to remove the money from him is theft by the state. Son being a scumbag should have nothing to do with it

 

[The Mad Rapper]

It does DIRECTLY make a difference to you. Because the government could have built a hospital with that money that would have stopped your 2 month old baby dying of Typhoid.

Except that I have private health care for my entire family. I can afford to provide them with the best care that money can provide, because I am well remunerated for working hard and producing results. My daughter would be fine.

 

[Dolph]

It does DIRECTLY make a difference to you. Because the government could have built a hospital with that money that would have stopped your 2 month old baby dying of Typhoid.

No they couldn't, because the money does not belong to the government, and the only way it could is through some massively authoritarian and unfair tax grab.

The state does not own the assets of the country and lend them to private individuals.

But instead in your society 'fat unemployed bloke' spent it on hookers and cocaine.

Marvellous.

You really do have a thoroughly unpleasant way of thinking that clearly requires that the individual has absolutely no rights to anything at all. I think I understand why you have absolutely no issue with the culture of state dependency, it's your preferred model for everyone. It's been tried, it doesn't work.

 

[Davies_M]

In his post a page back, he does raise some valid points (not all I agree with) Really, that the Daily Mail needs to be burnt to the ground and people should be voting for the future not on past prejudice (that is wrongly placed in most cases)

 

[Dolph]

In his post a page back, he does raise some valid points (not all I agree with) Really, that the Daily Mail needs to be burnt to the ground and people should be voting for the future not on past prejudice (that is wrongly placed in most cases)

If we're talking about Britboy, considering his entire position against the tories is based on past prejudice, that would be very rich...

 

[scorza]

But it wasn't a failure to implement the correct regulation, it was also a failure in messing about with the regulations and creating a bad regulator. He stopped the Bank of England being the banks regulator and gave it to the FSA which was already struggling as the regulator for investments and insurance. He made the regulatory system much worse.

Except of course it wasn't a free market, banks were forced to use two of three credit rating agencies and the bank regulator that Brown set up wasn't capable of doing the job and already overworked.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with having a FSA regulating the banking system. The specific problem in this case was that the FSA was set up to be a "light touch" regulator, because the feeling at the time was that regulation was unnecessary as the free market was the best way of creating stable companies. Sadly we've found out to our cost that is not the case.

As for the CRAs, I'm glad that there's regulation to prevent any fly-by night individuals setting up a CRA and aggressively touting for business by promising more favourable results for their customers. I see no evidence that more CRAs available to the banks would have resulted in a different outcome, save perhaps making this global economic crisis happen later and more severe than it did. Also, a CRA can only tell you the likelihood of a default, it's still up to the banks to manage their risks properly and understand the products they are buying.

Are you honestly falling for this apology? Can you really not see it for what it is? It is just another bit of election spin like so many other announcments and the like from so many other politicians of all stripes.

How often do you hear politicians apologise? Not nearly enough. Has Osbourne apologised for his mistakes yet? I don't recall him calling for the proper regulation that would have prevented this crisis in parliament? I do recall him arguing against bailing out the banks.

 

[robgmun]

Just as i thought

Britboy thinks what is best for everyone but ends up breaking society.

So i will go back so what i said right at the begining of this thread

Labour - In the process of trying to make everyone equally well off, they make everyone equally poor

 

[meghatronic]

How often do you hear politicians apologise? Not nearly enough. Has Osbourne apologised for his mistakes yet? I don't recall him calling for the proper regulation that would have prevented this crisis in parliament? I do recall him arguing against bailing out the banks.

Whilst I agree to an extent, he hasn't been in charge of anything the last 13yrs, really. So it could just be hyperbole and hot air.

Facta, non verba.

 

[Dolph]

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with having a FSA regulating the banking system. The specific problem in this case was that the FSA was set up to be a "light touch" regulator, because the feeling at the time was that regulation was unnecessary as the free market was the best way of creating stable companies. Sadly we've found out to our cost that is not the case.

Wow you manage to repeat the same lie despite having been called on it...

As for the CRAs, I'm glad that there's regulation to prevent any fly-by night individuals setting up a CRA and aggressively touting for business by promising more favourable results for their customers. I see no evidence that more CRAs available to the banks would have resulted in a different outcome, save perhaps making this global economic crisis happen later and more severe than it did. Also, a CRA can only tell you the likelihood of a default, it's still up to the banks to manage their risks properly and understand the products they are buying.

I take it you don't understand the term 'moral hazard', or the effects of regulation on creating market failure?

Incidentally, this flies directly in the face of your assertions that the problem lies with the free market.

How often do you hear politicians apologise? Not nearly enough. Has Osbourne apologised for his mistakes yet? I don't recall him calling for the proper regulation that would have prevented this crisis in parliament? I do recall him arguing against bailing out the banks.

This wasn't an apology really, it was a load of crap designed to sucker in irrational fools and shift the blame somewhere else. What's more worrying is you fell for it.

 

[Chris1712]

Why must the Lib-Dems have so many good ideas, and so many bad ones! The income tax changes they have proposed seem great, along with student fees etc. But then they drop the ball by scrapping Trident and rejecting Nuclear power!?
I really can't tell what their deal is, they seem to chop and change and just provide as many policies as they can that they think will be popular.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Treasury sold HMRC estate to offshore firm in tax haven, losing at least £184m in unrecoverable tax revenue

The then Inland Revenue’s estate of nearly 600 buildings was sold to a firm who processes its assets in a tax haven. The government now rents that same estate back from the firm, meaning it loses millions in unrecoverable taxes.

Today an analysis by parliament’s watchdog, the National Audit Office (NAO), reveals the offshore company that managed both deals is legally set to avoid paying hundreds of millions of pounds of tax to the very offices making tax demands on you.

In effect, to save an estimated £1.2bn, HM Revenue & Customs signed a £3.3bn contract with a firm now called Mapeley to hand over for 20 years the ownership and management of 591 tax offices, including the freehold of 132 offices to an offshore company then based in the Cayman Islands.

Today, the cost of contract has risen to £3.87bn, the maximum potential savings have dropped by £300m, and the department has found that it cannot recover its own VAT from the rent. It will have to draw up contingency plans costing over £100m should the company walk away following a decision to close 130 tax offices as part of the first wave of efficiency savings.

If Mapeley, now part of the US offshore Fortress group, was based in Britain rather than Bermuda, the tax coffers would be swelled by £184m. Easily enough to build a teaching hospital or renovate a lot of schools. In fact, the company is expected to pay £14m – saving £170m. That is hardly enough to renovate a big secondary school. Furthermore, Gordon Brown’s efficiency savings by closing tax offices is going to give the offshore company a tax bonanza if it can get a good price for them. Only the recession is stopping them.

http://futurefairforall.org/post/520624122/treasury-sold-hmrc-estate-to-offshore-firm-in-tax

 

[meghatronic]

Why must the Lib-Dems have so many good ideas, and so many bad ones! The income tax changes they have proposed seem great, along with student fees etc. But then they drop the ball by scrapping Trident and rejecting Nuclear power!?
I really can't tell what their deal is, they seem to chop and change and just provide as many policies as they can that they think will be popular.

They try and appease the masses - giving them what they want. Reminds me of Pontius Pilate a little.

 

[marv]

personly i dont care how the goverment deal with unemployed people as it would make no differnce if every 1 was working other than making the goverment richer, now if they lowered our tax buy the amount that goes on unemployment each year i would care but it would`nt happen.

 

[squerble]

Screenshot for posterity.

I voted Tory.

 

[robgmun]

personly i dont care how the goverment deal with unemployed people as it would make no differnce if every 1 was working other than making the goverment richer, now if they lowered our tax buy the amount that goes on unemployment each year i would care but it would`nt happen.

The Welfare State was a nice idea in theory. Sadly, in practice, it has created a huge volume of people who taken no responsibility for their lives in any respect. The shrinking core of workers are funding a growing bulk of lazy, good for nothing scum and the root cause is the welfare culture that we've allowed to grow. It may not be a wonderfully luxurious lifestyle but, nevertheless, it is too easy to milk the system and sit on your arse while others pour their taxes into funding the failures.

Yes there are many genuine cases but that just makes it even more necessary to change the system. Give MORE to the genuine and boot camp the rest of them.